Art as Art as Revolution!

A Response to Marcuse

“The radical qualities of art, that is to say, its indictment of the established reality and its invocation of the beautiful image of liberation are grounded precisely in the dimensions where art transcends its social determination and emancipates itself from th given universe of discourse and behavior while preserving its overwhelming presence.  Thereby art creates the realm in which the subversion of experience proper to art becomes possible . . . culminates in extreme situations (read emotions) which explode the given reality in the name of a truth normally denied or even unheard.” (6-7)

Marcuse redefines/re-expostulates a theory of Marxist aesthetics in which “art as art” is revolutionary not because it displays the proletariat or is propagandic in nature, but because the very formation of content into art highlights the senses which are universal—the result of which is that we can see how class systems are arbitrary and meaningless because all humans share these Truths.  This reminded me of Emilia’s monologue in Othello to Desdemona: “Their wives have sense like them: they see, and smell,/ and have their palates for both sweet and sour/ as men have” (4.3.93-95), and Shylock in Merchant: “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?” (3.1).  Marcuse seems to take for granted that art communicates something (a la Tolstoy): “it communicates truths not communicable in any other language” (Marcuse 10).  But, for him, the specific strength of art is in it’s ability to do the double consciousness thing discussed by another writer (I can’t recall the name just now), that “Art stands under the law of the given, while transgressing this law” making it in fact the ultimate revolutionary, subversive act—This reminded me of the subversive actions of the main character of the recent, highly popular, YA series The Hunger Games.  All of her subversion is indirect through the will to live and to honor life in a Truthful way—which subverts her reality.  To be fair, her actions as a character are not art, but the book itself is.  There are some interesting parallels to modern society and, while popular, the books could still pack revolutionary punch—despite the fact that their popularity may have “weaken[ed] its emancipatory impact” (Marcuse 21).

I appreciated Marcuse’s discussion of the connection between Aesthetic Form, Autonomy, and Truth—“the truth of art lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality . . . to define what is real” (9).  To me, the definitive nature of art (in making and tearing down realities and ideas) is quite phenomenal.  Before Picasso, could we imagine the world in cubes?  While the multiplicity of views expands in the Information age, art can act like hand holds to perceptions.  Art makes tangible that which we can’t express (see above quote from p 10).  C.S. Lewis wrote a short essay called “Sometimes Fairy Tales Say Best What’s To Be Said”—I think art in general speaks louder and more accurately without words or in addition to words.  The embodiment and sensuousness of art expresses something beyond the solo capability of language.  Though then I am caught because what is literature and poetry if not language and where do you draw the line between artistic writing and non-artistic writing.  And this line (or the need to make that line) I think might be the problem entire. 

In any case, I do have some places where I feel a disconnect from Marcuse.  First, as he acknowledges, the pool of pieces that he works with in the middle sections of his piece is a small one and he may “operate with a self-validating hypothesis” (x) (though, as I have noted before, to define Art without a self-validating hypothesis might be impossible, since it a primarily retroactive process—kind of like exploding atoms in order to see what’s inside them).  Second, I have to ask about art that supports and upholds the negative/bourgeois status quo.  There is art that subverts and art that subverts subversiveness—like DISNEY FILMS! J that in their “Truth”/subverted world, actually promote oppressive ideals and scenario fulfillments.  It is an important question no doubt—and I rather think that Marcuse might respond by saying that the non-reality of the fairy-tales make them less true.  But then I would whip out some C.S. Lewis and throw his theorizing about the starkness and hyper-reality of the epic which more accurately expresses reality than realism ever can because it’s expressing those in-expressible things—that “reality” can’t quite express. 

On the other hand, some interesting pieces to analyze using Marcuse’s Marxist Neo-Aesthetic would be “Scott Pilgrim”, “Waltz with Bashir”, “Othello”, and, my own play for next year, “Time Stands Still.” 

“Art can be called revolutionary” (x)

“The truth of art lies in this: that the world really is as it appears in the work of art” (xii).  Totes—Truth versus truth

“It seems that art as art expresses a truth, an experience, a necessity which, although not in the domain of radical praxis, are nevertheless essential components of revolution”—Mmm.

“A work of art is authentic or true not by virtue of its content, nor by its “pure” form, but by the content having become form” (8) This makes me want to go back to my Christianity and Theatre paper from a couple years ago to add this in—a la Christian theatre is by this token not Christian because of its content, but by the content having become form—of course that would necessitate even more work on my part to define what I perceive as a Christian Theatre Aesthetic . . . A subset of my work for this class.

I’m sorry all, but I don’t have a specific citation for this Handout =\